The new industrial strategy states that the government will use the 16-19 high-value course premia to uplift funding to courses that support key sectors. It also acknowledges that the nation’s skills pipeline starts at school. So why not introduce the uplift earlier?
As things stand, technical education courses at pre-16 will receive no such uplift. This leaves schools (and colleges in the 14-16 space) to deliver expensive technical courses that support high-growth sectors with no extra funding.
Technical education at the crucial key stage 4 (KS4) helps prepare students for more rigorous T Levels and apprenticeships, which lead to promising careers in industry.
It can also help inclusion and engagement: Two-thirds of UTC students told our 2024 survey their attendance had improved since their last school. Almost 90 per cent agreed that the mix of academic, technical and practical learning had helped.
If schools are expected to become more inclusive and to prepare young people for the workplace, technical education must be seen as part of the solution and funded accordingly.
The Department for Education already gives different weightings to technical subjects at KS5. Applying the same principle to KS4 would ensure consistency, address cost disparities and ought to support progression to T Levels and apprenticeships.
Improving destinations
The high-value course premium gives providers £600 for each student taking certain level three courses in specific subject areas including engineering and manufacturing technologies. Government guidance states this is “to encourage and support provision that leads to higher wage returns, to enable a more productive economy”.
Such a premium for KS4 technical subjects would support provision that can help progress young people to work. Our own UTC Sleeve initiative shows the positive impact of placing a high-quality, technical pathways within mainstream schools.
Last academic year, a fifth of UTC Year 13 leavers progressed onto an apprenticeship, four times more than the national average. We put that down to most UTC students starting at 14, or maybe earlier.
Not only do they get the opportunity to study the technical subjects they need for work at a relatively early age but, as one UTC leader said to us recently, they learn what they do not want to do and can target their preferred destination.
Properly-funded 14-16 technical education can also help inclusion at a time when the government is eager to improve this in mainstream schooling. Pupil referral units have achieved great results by linking provision to employment destinations.
However, technical education should not be seen as a way to keep troubled kids in school. It offers brilliant opportunities for all.
Just one in 25 UTC Year 13 leavers become NEET (not in education, employment, or training). At a time when one in eight young people nationally are NEET, better funding for KS4 technical education is a powerful lever to reduce economic inactivity among young people.
Return on investment
Technical education is expensive at any key stage. Specialist teachers must be recruited and trained, and industry-standard equipment must be purchased which comes with other associated costs, like maintenance, energy usage and consumable materials.
The DfE recognises the increased costs of this provision, which is why it provides the post-16 programme weightings.
But the benefits from a KS4 technical funding uplift would be seen throughout the skills pipeline, ensuring return on investment.
Progression to employment is good for the student and good for the economy. As more young people are prepared for careers in high-growth sectors identified in the industrial strategy, they boost growth and become net contributors to the treasury.
The opportunity to feed talented young workers into these sectors and increase youth employment makes it clear that the government should introduce a funding uplift for KS4 technical provision.
I wrote previously for Schools Week on how the curriculum and assessment review should lead to the promotion of KS3 design and technology.
If we want to build a strong pathway from school, through T Levels and A Levels and onto apprenticeships and high-paying, growth-driving careers, then it should also consider a further recommendation: to match the funding uplift for post-16 technical education in earlier key stages.
Your thoughts